Eddie Howe

[LFEE]

2 hours ago, Abacus said:

My guess is that Howe isn't interested in the England job, not yet, but he has to be diplomatic about that. And also use the speculation to his advantage at Newcastle.

 

So, then as for Newcastle. Originally when he joined it was to a shell of a club at exec level and he, along with Staveley, would have been involved in just about everything because - well - they had to be. He might even have enjoyed that, but it was never sustainable and it wasn't intended to be done that way forever. 

 

I'm pretty sure the appointment of a DOF was needed to ease that burden - I think Staveley said as much at the time - as well as always having been intended as part of a more structured set up.

 

Then, rumours of friction with Ashworth which if true would have instead complicated his job in some respects. Similar rumours that Ashworth thought he'd have more control than he did - if true, maybe this was with Staveley, Howe or a combination of those.

 

Roll forward to appointing Mitchell. If there was some sort of power struggle with the previous DOF, it's only natural he'd be cautious. From being in a position right at the start where he'd have been involved in everything through necessity, to one where some roles will be taken out of his hands or have reduced say, it's understandable he'd be cautious about how it would work again this time.

 

Then Bunce - brought in for player recovery etc. Is this an implied criticism of the injury situation last time? Will it mean not being able to play players in situations like with Longstaff when he was choosing to play through an injury? It's one criticism made of Howe last year by some fans at least, whether it was fair or not.

 

If I had to guess, this is where any stuff about boundaries is coming from, especially with Staveley gone too. Each of those appointments makes perfect sense to me. But I can also understand why he might say those things if he'd been a bit burnt by Ashworth.

 

That's all complete speculation, of course. We'll see how it goes, but personally just can't wait till the season starts and everyone can get on with their jobs. If all the pieces fall together, I think it could be his dream job since he looks and sounds happy to be back.

 Spot on IMO.

[Optimistic Nut]

3 hours ago, Paulinho said:

If you were viewing this scenario play out at a different club, would any of us really be thinking “yeah, no chance he’s leaving” after those comments? 

 

I'd hardly be thinking, "Christ, he's a dead man walking" like. 

[Abacus]

26 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

I agree with most of your points, but you’re looking at it from a macro level - finished 7th.

If you break it down to the micro level there are things we could’ve done better to make that macro level even better.

7th is only good if your target was 7th. If the target was 5-6th for example, 7th is seen as a failure regardless of mitigating factors, especially if the thought is that some of those mitigating factors were deemed avoidable. 

They’ll no doubt have carried out a detailed postmortem on the business and footballing side of things to understand what we can do better in all departments going forward. I guess we’ll find out what they are.

 

 

Yeah, I personally would prefer a set up where the manager makes all the big calls, especially if you have someone like Howe that I completely trust and has no doubt overperformed. But I'm harking back to the past with that sort of set up, and football is no doubt too big for that now.

 

Just on the injuries point, there were obviously a huge number of freak injuries (I'm still cursing Pope's injury) in a squad already stretched in a European competition we had no right to get to this soon and without the quality in depth to make up for it.

 

We all know that, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they've wanted to see if there are ways they were looking to improve here too, like they'll want to in every area. Given we're still playing catch up from years of neglect, it's all part of trying to get the most out of what you've got, isn't it? So, I do get your point.

[Dr Venkman]

If you need to build a really strong, competitive team whilst not being allowed to spend as much as your rivals, there surely can’t be many better options for head coach than Eddie? He’s exceptional at developing players.

[Memphis]

I will say the Athletic piece here has made me a bit more concerned about the situation. In it, Waugh includes the full transcript of several questions and answers I haven't seen elsewhere. 

 

That's rather more alarming than I initially thought. Didn't rule out being gone before the start of the season. 

 

Again, he's couching it as "having to work for Newcastle" but it certainly sounds more like it has to work for him.

 

And again he points out that being allowed to have a huge amount of control is the way he wants to work, and he's just not sure that's going to be allowed to continue.

 

I do think after reading the quotes there is a bit more to the story than I thought at first.

[TRon]

2 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

I have no issue with the club if they have some reservations long term.

 

Clubs should always back their managers but they also shouldn't do it to the extent where it places all power in one individual and makes continuity difficult when said manager goes (which they are always at risk of). The structures in place at a football club should be able to continue when an individual leaves. It seems to me that's what is trying to be put in place this summer.

 

Love Eddie but he must surely realise this is how all big football clubs operate.

 

Yep. I don't blame Eddie for setting his boundaries, but ultimately he's going to have to operate within the bigger structure. I'm sure we will do everything possible to keep him, but we've brought in Mitchell and Bunce for a reason. They'll have their roles, and ultimately Howe's role is coaching.